What do Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, Spain, Switzerland, and Israel have in common?
They outlaw speech to protect the truth. Brilliant.
Sure, Holocaust-denial is to historical scholarship what Intelligent Design is to paleontology, with a lot of gratuitous hatred of Jews tossed in for bad measure. But I never heard of a scientist who wanted Creationism made a crime.
Meanwhile, the circus in Tehran goes forward with a motley collection in attendance, not all of them necessarily raging nutjobs. The Neturei Karta folks certainly acknowledge the Holocaust; they were let in because they don't believe it is yet time for an earthly Israel. Khaled Kasab Mahameed was not let in, once the Iranians discovered he was not their type of Palestinian but instead kept an Arab-language Holocaust museum. Meanwhile, Iranian students burn pictures of Ahmadenijad for embarrassing the country, and the roughly 25,000 Jews who remain in Iran following earlier pogroms are "dismayed" by the conference, to say the very least.
I don't know what Iran will get out of this long term. Iran's point was to challenge Western hypocrisy over free speech. Well they should. But so long as the Iranians themselves can't debate their expensive and dangerous nuclear program or anything else of substance, the entire exercise is doomed to fizzle in Ahmadenijad's face. And that's a good thing. Maybe in a way this will be a turning point, in which a signal lack of violent protest outside Iran, instead just a shaking of heads, shows the folks inside Iran what an intellectual lightweight of a bully they've gone and elected. (There's something familiar about that but I'm not sure what.)
But I'm a little Grinchy this time of year, and all this turmoil gives me the chance to show my true colors. Indeed, I am sick to death of putting up with the inferiority of lesser strains. Maybe it's time to turn on the ovens!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Don
I'm too serious
Tell me, tell, me, if you think you know
Labels
- About Me (15)
- aminals (25)
- architecture (3)
- burningman (41)
- ceaseless self-examination (19)
- history (17)
- inchoate entrepreneurialism (2)
- kid stuff (24)
- long unedited essays (22)
- music (4)
- NaNoWriMo (29)
- nanowrimocrastination (3)
- oh my godless (2)
- OMG IM OCD (4)
- people are strange (2)
- people are stupid (11)
- people what matter (18)
- perpetual picture-taking (24)
- politics (67)
- random life events (59)
- random whining (14)
- reading (4)
- San Francisco (11)
- shameless sexism (1)
- short fiction (3)
- short unedited essays (10)
- society (14)
- sports (2)
- thinking too much (9)
- Thursday Thirteen (6)
- travel (53)
- wha-a-atever (25)
- wordless wednesday (6)
- work (34)
- writing (15)
- xmas (13)
Blog Archive
-
▼
2006
(57)
-
▼
December
(19)
- Reading Local News Because I Am Too Tired And Stup...
- Time to Update
- Merry Christmas II
- Merry Christmas
- Trees and Lights
- Oh Come, All Ye Faithful
- This Post is Not About Christmas
- Fear No Evel
- Cold Snap
- Forever Gone but Not In Volatile Memory
- Reveal Your Blog Crush Day, Yeah Right!
- R.I.P. P.B.
- Truth Needn't Fear
- Sightless Spending
- Friday's Fractal Fourteen
- With tiny steps across the line
- A Brief Story About Someone Without a Clue
- Chicago: Two for the Show
- news.google headline of the day
-
▼
December
(19)
34 comments:
"They outlaw speech to protect the truth. Brilliant."
You may disagree, but in the case of Israel, which has had an inordinate amount of citizens who are actually Holocaust survivors, there are legitimate reasons for such laws. Protecting the truth isn't one of them so much as protecting survivors from any more trauma associated with the horror that was the Shoa. I think Israelis know more truth about the Holocaust than any other country's citizens, don't you? They hardly need to be subjected to the venomous bile of Holocaust deniers after actually living it.
- Mark
I think Israelis know more truth about the Holocaust than any other country's citizens, don't you?
No, I don't think Israelis know more about the Holocaust than everyone else. If anything they can't see past their noses when it comes to the suffering of others. Ask the Palistinians or the people in Darfur for starters. Look into a kosher slaughter house.
"If anything they can't see past their noses when it comes to the suffering of others."
Well, Asha, I disagree.
"Look into a kosher slaughter house."
That was hardly the point I was trying to make. We can debate that here:
http://blog.peta2.com/
- Mark
I think it's a mistake to try to ban any idea - it gives it power. And this one is just too stupid to have power. If it weren't so disrespectful to the Holocaust survivors, it would be downright laughable. So why give these people any attention at all? Do you stop and stare at the loon on the subway shouting about the endtimes while eating bugs?
Do you stop and stare at the loon on the subway shouting about the endtimes while eating bugs?
I might if he's rude and doesn't share.
I agree with Nobody. Banning a topic of discussion gives it more power. Anyone who has kids knows this. "Don't talk about bodily functions at the dinner table."
Israelis certainly don't know more about the Holocaust than anyone else merely by virtue of being Israelis. Many are survivors, many more never got close. In the meantime the Nazis murdered millions of people who weren't Jewish. Nobody has a monopoly on that kind of suffering, though some ignorant people try to claim one.
I'm not in favour of banning any form of speech, but I understand how such bans might come about, and I think it's not America's place to lecture anyone who went through those times on how to react. If it hadn't been for the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, you guys would have let us all go to Hell, remember.
Finally, the Iran conference is a joke, and people who get outraged simply give it recognition it doesn't merit, even if you're mocking it. You don't stare at the loon on the subway, and neither do you make up skits about him for your revue show or your blog.
Protecting survivors from trauma sounds good, but it is not a philosophy that can be applied evenly. Does it mean the law will lift once the last survivor has passed? Or the last child of a survivor? Grandchild? What about victims of others sorts of brutality? Should it be illegal to claim that suicide bombings are really accidents? (To pick an example of something also absurd.)
Anyway, free speech can't be absolute and each community sets its own standards. I just disagree on this one.
not America's place to lecture
No, but it is mine. If we can't criticize each other, who can we criticize?
you guys would have let us all go to Hell
It's a fair debate as to whether we should have. Obviously I don't think so -- I have a record of supporting foreign wars waged in the name of other people's liberty -- but if we had, would we truly have suffered? We got the A-Bomb first, after all.
You don't stare at the loon on the subway
Why the hell not? Other than that he might attack me, if he's drawing attention to himself by being a loon, then stare I may. The impact is reduced anyway cause I have a subconscious habit of trying not to make people feel bad. Anyway If I can't lecture you on free speech, then surely you can't lecture me on loonybird etiquette.
Sour Grapes' response aside (who will never agree with me about anything - after all isn't he one of the most vociferous criotics of Israel being a state of European interlopers? Correct me if I'm wrong here, Sour Grapes), I disagree that Israelis don't know more, (that concept is just laughable on its own), and, in the case of Israel, (which is the only case that I was referring to), I think it is up to Israel to decide what is best, not anyone who doesn't live there. After all, do you all really believe that such a crucial point of law wasn't given the utmost careful consideration by the fledgling state of Israel?
-Mark
If it hadn't been for the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, you guys would have let us all go to Hell, remember.
Good point, Mr. Grapes.
...not America's place to lecture
No, but it is mine. If we can't criticize each other, who can we criticize?
Good point, Don.
You don't stare at the loon on the subway...
Why the hell not?
Why the hell not? Then he'd be staring at me - and I'd let Don stare at me any ol' day...
If it hadn't been for the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, you guys would have let us all go to Hell, remember.
Again I say, everybody let Darfur go to hell, Isralis included. If the Isralis learned anything from the Holocaust, they should be on the front lines battling genocide wherever it happens. Instead they are caught up in political navel gazing and morbid self-entitlement.
It's absurd to suggest the Israelis could have done anything with regard to Darfur. What little I know, it is a flare-up of Arab racism, enabled by the UN's usual capability. Khofi Annan should answer for it long before any Israeli.
Agree with Hopey that the conference gets more attention than it deserves. But, well. People always turn their heads towards a car crash, and the news media are not in the business to turn aside anything that gets attention.
If I had to correct Mark every time he was wrong I should never get anything else done. I won't bother. Nobody takes him even slightly seriously anyway, so what's the point? Look at his comment where he refers to me. He's incoherent. What am I supposed to refute, even assuming I could be bothered? WTF does he think he's saying? Could he possibly just for once post while he's sober?
"Could he possibly just for once post while he's sober?"
Hic! Could Alan possibly just post once without being a complete whinging horse's arse? Tomorrow at least I will be sober.
Mark
I find it interesting that Sour Grapes is so dedicated to telling peeps not to mention Nutjob on their blogs.
BTW, I think the people at Yad Vashem would be interested to know that they don't know more about the Holocaust than anyone else and I think Israel is busy fighting her own battle against terrorism, Asha.
But whatever.
I think the people at Yad Vashem would be interested to know that they don't know more about the Holocaust
Isreal is busy fighting alright but whether ... as ... or against ... terrorists depends on your point of view.
As for Darfur, everyone claims "nothing could be done". I just don't believe it.
I should like to point out that the US Holocaust Memorial Museum gets copious amounts of funding from Israel and if you have a look at their web site (http://www.ushmm.org/) it is pretty clear that the genocide in Darfur is high on their agenda. Also, Israel has been one of the greatest advocates and supporters of the world's Armenian community in trying to get the Turkish genocide of the Armenians recognised.
And anyway Asha, don't you think it's just a little bigoted to negatively characterise a whole nation? Every single citizen? I think you will find that some of Israel's greatest criticisms come from within, and with a little more research you would realise that the Israeli government is not as shortsighted as you might think.
But as for banning such speech I am still in two minds. However, at work the other day my supervisor - a Holocaust survivor - made quite a pertinent point,
"Let them bark, they can't change history"
And I know they can't change history, but some people might believe them and start doing nasty things because of what they believe to be fact.
I'm still undecided.
They can't change history, but some may be doomed to repeat histopry after listening to the revisionists bark.
BTW, Asha, it's "I S R A E L"
and "I S R A E L I".
HTH.
Mark
And, of course, it's H I S T O R Y.
;o)>
M
I find it interesting that Sour Grapes is so dedicated to telling peeps not to mention Nutjob on their blogs.
Which one?
:)
rachy: Thanks for the link. I see Darfur is in the banner. Good. I expect nothing less. It is a grim duty but maintaining the lighthouse is essential if we are to navigate these treacherous waters. Forgive my ignorance. I am focused on the sickness festering in the US, the neo-fascist desire for perpetual war and profit from war and their relentless campaign of terror, crimes and lies to achieve it. They also want to limit open and free debate. Evil grows best in secret.
Do not be naive. In order to protect history there MUST be open debate; otherwise it becomes opaque rather than transparent. Making topics forbidden only drives the dialogue underground where it goes unchallenged. There are revisionists for everything. It is the nature of the world.
Do you really think I am so delusional as to believe I know the heart and mind of every single Israeli citizen? If so, perhaps you also think I believe Americans are all of the same mind? But that would be impossible. I was one of the people who spoke out against the neocon power grab from the beginning, even when it felt dangerous to do so. All due respect but, in my opinion, Israel went too far in the July War, a decision only made worse because I expect more compassion from Israel, not less, precisely because of the Holocaust.
anonymous: Thanks for the spelling lesson.
You call your previous comments maintaining the lighthouse? I absolutely agree with your sentiments but I believe one must do research before making sweeping statements.
Do you really think I am so delusional as to believe I know the heart and mind of every single Israeli citizen?
One gets that impression when you make such sweeping statements as you did. Maybe now you might be a little bit more careful when making statements about "the Israelis"
Maybe now you might be a little bit more careful when making statements about "the Israelis"
It is a paradox. Nations and the people they represent are simultaneously one and different. As individuals we are simultaneously one and many. However, for both, actions speak louder than words.
Personally, I despise the fascist and christo-fascist conservatives currently infesting America. At the same time I am ashamed of myself and "the Americans" because Bush and his successors continue to wreck havoc on the world.
I think it is the same for "the Israelis", "the Germans" during Hitler, "all of us" for places like Darfur, for catastrophic global climate change etc., etc.. As individuals, there is so much we could do to establish sanity and peace on this planet if we would just rise above national boundaries.
I support laws against Holocaust denial in those places in which it makes sense to have them. I've explained why on my blog before now. I consider it an assault against those who suffered, an assault intended to rally others to cause further harm. Dude, I'm all for free speech. Express your views, sure, but I don't believe it's a good thing to consider yelling "Kill all the niggers" in the high street an example of free expression. It is in any case deeply saddening that provided the freedom to speak, some choose to tell a huge lie. But with the examples our leaders set, perhaps we can't really blame them.
Hopey is wrong on several counts. I'll enumerate them for him.
"Israelis certainly don't know more about the Holocaust than anyone else merely by virtue of being Israelis. Many are survivors, many more never got close."
There would be few Israelis, or Jews of any kind, who did not lose somebody. There would be precious few whose only remembrance of a grandmother or grandfather would be a faded photograph. I think nonJews fail to grasp that, the scale of it.
"In the meantime the Nazis murdered millions of people who weren't Jewish. Nobody has a monopoly on that kind of suffering, though some ignorant people try to claim one."
Yes, other people were killed too, but that doesn't lessen the suffering of Jews.
"I'm not in favour of banning any form of speech, but I understand how such bans might come about"
I am sure there are forms of speech you wish banned. I am willing to wager that you support "fire in the theatre" bans and that you also support a law on slander.
I believe that Holocaust denial is a form of defamation. It might be preferable that it be actionable in a civil court rather than a criminal offence, but it is a gross offence.
"and I think it's not America's place to lecture anyone who went through those times on how to react. If it hadn't been for the Japanese and Pearl Harbor, you guys would have let us all go to Hell, remember."
This simply is not true. Without American materiel, even the bold resistance of the UK would not have been sufficient.
"Finally, the Iran conference is a joke, and people who get outraged simply give it recognition it doesn't merit, even if you're mocking it. You don't stare at the loon on the subway, and neither do you make up skits about him for your revue show or your blog."
I do not agree at all. This is way too close to "fuck, it's only antisemitism, who cares about that?" Well, it's right to care about that. People die of it. We have a duty to do what we can not to let that happen again. If the small thing we can do is express outrage so that others do not think it is okay, then that is the small thing we should do. Pretending that a dangerous man like Ahmedinajad, who arms and pays for people who kill other people because of the ideology you find so fucking amusing, is just a joke is a mistake.
"What little I know, it is a flare-up of Arab racism, enabled by the UN's usual capability. Khofi Annan should answer for it long before any Israeli."
This is plain, in-your-face ignorance. The UN cannot do a thing if its constituents do not wish it to. And they do not. Kofi Annan does not have an army!
Kofi Annan does not have an army!
No, but it is (was) his job to motivate countries that do, so that injustices on the scale of Darfur can come to an end, or never happen at all. My point though was to deflect culpability from Israel, who could have done nothing at all. Even if Annan could not have done anything about (and if that's true, why have a UN at all?), Israel could only have done less.
I don't believe it's a good thing to consider yelling "Kill all the niggers" in the high street an example of free expression
We will have to agree to disagree on this one. Such lunacy is properly illegal only if it incites violence. Otherwise, no. What we need to do is learn to protect people's rights: Protect them from violence and suppression, but not from words that upset them.
So I have the pleasure of disagreeing with both Mark and Zen at the same time: You guys think upsetting someone (within certain narrow constraints) merits jail time. But though to be free from being offended may be a natural desire, it is not a right.
"But though to be free from being offended may be a natural desire, it is not a right."
Neither is it right for an American cirizen to decide what is best for Isrtael and her citizens.
I really have to say, thank you, Zen. Very well said.
Neither is it right for an American cirizen to decide what is best for Isrtael
I haven't decided anything for Israel -- I haven't got quite that much power. Israel (and you and Zen and those European countries) are wrong on this issue. Am I doing something wrong by expressing this opinion?
Anyway, no need to argue further. You're in big company and I'm sometimes more of an absolutist on individual rights than most people. Plus I get concerned over the principle of precedence.
FWIW, I expressed my views at great length in this post: http://gollyg.blogspot.com/2006/02/on-irving.html
It should be clear that your last comment misrepresents those views. Which is unfair, because mine are clearly articulated from principle, whereas yours are just mindless expansions of a slogan. You do not oppose restrictions on free speech at all. That is ridiculous. If a person came to your front yard and screamed "Don is a fucking arsehole" all day and all night, you would not tell the coppers not to cart him away because he has a right to his opinion. You believe in restrictions on means and I don't think I'd be wrong in suggesting that you believe in restrictions on content, supporting a law against defamation, for instance.
Post a Comment